Variation of fee-for-service specialist direct care work effort with patient overall illness burden

2011 ◽  
Vol 24 (3) ◽  
pp. 130-141 ◽  
Author(s):  
Robert Goodman
2019 ◽  
Vol 6 ◽  
pp. 233339281984248
Author(s):  
Grant R. Martsolf ◽  
Ryan Kandrack ◽  
Mark W. Friedberg ◽  
Brian Briscombe ◽  
Peter S. Hussey ◽  
...  

The performance of the any health-care system relies on a high-functioning primary care system. Increasing primary care practices’ adoption of “comprehensive primary care” capabilities might yield meaningful improvements in the quality and efficiency of primary care. However, many comprehensive primary care capabilities, such as care management and coordination, are not compensated via traditional fee-for-service payment. To calculate new payments for these capabilities, policymakers would need estimates of the costs that practices incur when adopting, maintaining, and using the capabilities. We performed a narrative review of the existing literature on the costs of adopting and implementing comprehensive primary care capabilities. These studies have found that practices incur significant costs when adopting and implementing comprehensive primary care capabilities. However, the studies had significant limitations that prevent extensive use of their estimates for payment policy. Particularly, the strongest studies focused on a small numbers of practices in specific geographic areas and the concepts and methods used to assess costs varied greatly across the studies. Furthermore, none of the studies in our review attempted to estimate differences in costs across practices with patients at varying levels of complexity and illness burden which is important for risk-adjusting payments to practices. Therefore, due to the heterogeneous designs and limited generalizability of published studies highlight the need for additional research, especially if payers wish to link their financial support for comprehensive primary care capabilities to the costs of these capabilities for primary care practices.


Author(s):  
Alana Lee Glaser

There are approximately 4.4 million direct-care workers in the United States. Comprising the labor of nurses, home health aides, certified nursing assistants, personal attendants, and companions to the elderly, direct-care work constitutes one of the fastest-growing labor niches in the United States. Within the commodified caregiving sector, cost-cutting imperatives to subdivide care labor introduce insalubrious complications for patients by cleaving – or attempting to do so – their physical needs from their emotional and relational needs, a process that I label ‘rationalized aging’. In this essay, I reflect on my experiences as a paid elder companion in New York City to argue that this process of subdivision combines earlier nineteenth-century rationalization strategies with neoliberal regimes of flexible accumulation and to highlight the consequences of subdivision in this sector both for care workers and for the patients in their care.


2012 ◽  
Vol 45 (8) ◽  
pp. 7
Author(s):  
STUART B. BLACK
Keyword(s):  

1967 ◽  
Vol 12 (9) ◽  
pp. 468-468
Author(s):  
NICHOLAS HOBBS
Keyword(s):  

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document